1
The Lighter Side / Re: Unusual First Names
« on: Tuesday 21 November 23 11:55 GMT (UK) »
One of my ancestors married a man who had three christian names, the final one being "Posthumous". (The first two were "Horatio" and "Nelson").
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
The Common Room / Re: "De quo non affidavit" - entry in 1736 parish register
« on: Tuesday 21 November 23 10:29 GMT (UK) »
Many thanks for the response Bookbox, especially the link to the Act.
Thanks also to Andrew. I think we are all on the right track. I had found a definition on the internet which said;
"De quo non affidavit is a Latin phrase that translates to “that which is not denied.” It is often used in legal contexts to refer to a fact or statement that has not been disputed or contradicted. In other words, it implies that something is accepted as true because it has not been explicitly denied". Which, if I understand this correctly, suggests that a statement had been made that the burial was in accordance with the Act had been accepted as true despite the absence of an actual affidavit. The fact that the phrase had been crossed through meant that it was no longer required because some form of written affidavit had been provided later.
Thanks also to Andrew. I think we are all on the right track. I had found a definition on the internet which said;
"De quo non affidavit is a Latin phrase that translates to “that which is not denied.” It is often used in legal contexts to refer to a fact or statement that has not been disputed or contradicted. In other words, it implies that something is accepted as true because it has not been explicitly denied". Which, if I understand this correctly, suggests that a statement had been made that the burial was in accordance with the Act had been accepted as true despite the absence of an actual affidavit. The fact that the phrase had been crossed through meant that it was no longer required because some form of written affidavit had been provided later.
3
The Common Room / "De quo non affidavit" - entry in 1736 parish register
« on: Monday 20 November 23 17:50 GMT (UK) »
In trying to trace an ancestor in the 18th Century, I came across an entry for the burial of Philip Johnson on 5 April 1736 in Gedney, Lincolnshire. Underneath the entry was the phrase "De quo non affidavit" but it seems to have been subsequently crossed out. This has occurred in several other entries on the same page.
I understand that the reference to the affidavit is that which was required under the law requiring burial in wool. It seems to suggest that someone was unwilling to provide an affidavit at the time of the burial but the crossing out seems to suggest that an affidavit was provided subsequently.
Am I on the right lines?
I understand that the reference to the affidavit is that which was required under the law requiring burial in wool. It seems to suggest that someone was unwilling to provide an affidavit at the time of the burial but the crossing out seems to suggest that an affidavit was provided subsequently.
Am I on the right lines?
Pages: [1]